State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co

General

Total Cases38

Active Cases2

Patents2,089

CourtsE.D. Texas W.D. Texas N.D. Illinois

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

lisacrumagency.com

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L2

B

PTAB

L3

A

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
01/17/25	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ motion for leave to amend invalidity expert reports (“Motion”), (D.I. [338] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [339] ; D.I. [345] ; D.I. [348] ), having held a videoconference hearing on the Motion on January 16, 2025, and incorporating by reference the prior history relating to this dispute set out in its September 11, 2024 Memorandum Order (the “September 11, 2024 MO”), (D.I. [231] ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) With the Motion, and pursuant to guidance provided by the Court in the September 11, 2024 MO, (id. at 4 n.6), Defendants now seek the ability to amend their invalidity expert reports to add a total of eight obviousness combinations (related to three patents-in-suit) into the case, (see D.I. [339] at 1).; (2) Because these combinations are different from those that Defendants previously elected pursuant to a Court-ordered case narrowing procedure, Defendants must show that there is good cause for their Motion. The good cause inquiry, in turn, initially focuses on whether Defendants have acted diligently in seeking this relief. (D.I. [231] at 3-4) That was not an easy question to answer, as there were surely points in the history of this dispute where Defendants could have acted with a bit more dispatch. For example, Defendants might have moved more quickly than they did after the Court issued its September 11, 2024 MO (which struck a much larger grouping of proposed combinations relating to the three patents that Defendants were then seeking to press in their invalidity reports—on the ground that the request violated the Court’s case narrowing order) to try to get the instant request teed up before the Court, as this Motion was not filed until November 22, 2024. (D.I. [338] ) That said, Defendants have now explained in their briefing and via a submitted declaration that: (a) in the relevant time periods, they were working diligently with their expert so as to put forward only a good faith, finite and “targeted selection” of combinations for the Court’s consideration; and (b) during that time, they were attempting to ensure that the combinations they presented did not significantly alter the landscape of their validity case (as it existed as of the last case narrowing deadline). (D.I. [348] at 1-2; D.I. [340] ; see also D.I. [339] at 2-3) And so the Court concludes that (just barely) Defendants have acted diligently here. See, e.g., Home Semiconductor Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Civil Action No. 13-2033-RGA, 2019 WL 2135858, at 5 (D. Del. May 16, 2019) (concluding that party that filed a motion to amend three months after the relevant meet and confer had acted with diligence).; (3) To the extent that the Court then also can consider other factors relating to the Motion, such as “the importance of the new information” or the “potential prejudice to the opposing party[,]” Brit. Telecommc’ns. PLC v. IAC/Interactivecorp, Civil Action No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 3047989, at 2 (D. Del. June 8, 2020), those factors support Defendants’ position. That is because: (a) the information at issue is very important to Defendants, who would be left without any Section 102/103 defenses at all as to these three patents-in-suit, were the motion not granted; (b) the total number of combinations now sought to be pressed is much less than the number of new combinations that were at issue when the Court resolved the September 11, 2024 MO; (c) the parties have already had their experts opine on these eight combinations, and Defendants’ invalidity expert has been deposed on these issues; and (d) from Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments during the hearing, it does not appear as if granting the Motion will have any impact on the pending summary judgment process. (D.I. [339] at 1, 3; D.I. [348] at 2); and (4) Therefore, Defendants’ request is granted, in that they may amend their invalidity expert reports to present the eight combinations discussed above. The parties can further meet and confer to discuss (and hopefully agree on) any further process that should occur relating to these validity issues between now and trial (including whether and when Plaintiffs should amend their responsive expert reports, and/or whether any further relief is required from the Court). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/17/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/17/2025) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ motion for leave to amend invalidity expert reports (“Motion”), (D.I. [338] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [339] ; D.I. [345] ; D.I. [348] ), having held a videoconference hearing on the Motion on January 16, 2025, and incorporating by reference the prior history relating to this dispute set out in its September 11, 2024 Memorandum Order (the “September 11, 2024 MO”), (D.I. [231] ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) With the Motion, and pursuant to guidance provided by the Court in the September 11, 2024 MO, (id. at 4 n.6), Defendants now seek the ability to amend their invalidity expert reports to add a total of eight obviousness combinations (related to three patents-in-suit) into the case, (see D.I. [339] at 1).; (2) Because these combinations are different from those that Defendants previously elected pursuant to a Court-ordered case narrowing procedure, Defendants must show that there is good cause for their Motion. The good cause inquiry, in turn, initially focuses on whether Defendants have acted diligently in seeking this relief. (D.I. [231] at 3-4) That was not an easy question to answer, as there were surely points in the history of this dispute where Defendants could have acted with a bit more dispatch. For example, Defendants might have moved more quickly than they did after the Court issued its September 11, 2024 MO (which struck a much larger grouping of proposed combinations relating to the three patents that Defendants were then seeking to press in their invalidity reports—on the ground that the request violated the Court’s case narrowing order) to try to get the instant request teed up before the Court, as this Motion was not filed until November 22, 2024. (D.I. [338] ) That said, Defendants have now explained in their briefing and via a submitted declaration that: (a) in the relevant time periods, they were working diligently with their expert so as to put forward only a good faith, finite and “targeted selection” of combinations for the Court’s consideration; and (b) during that time, they were attempting to ensure that the combinations they presented did not significantly alter the landscape of their validity case (as it existed as of the last case narrowing deadline). (D.I. [348] at 1-2; D.I. [340] ; see also D.I. [339] at 2-3) And so the Court concludes that (just barely) Defendants have acted diligently here. See, e.g., Home Semiconductor Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Civil Action No. 13-2033-RGA, 2019 WL 2135858, at 5 (D. Del. May 16, 2019) (concluding that party that filed a motion to amend three months after the relevant meet and confer had acted with diligence).; (3) To the extent that the Court then also can consider other factors relating to the Motion, such as “the importance of the new information” or the “potential prejudice to the opposing party[,]” Brit. Telecommc’ns. PLC v. IAC/Interactivecorp, Civil Action No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 3047989, at 2 (D. Del. June 8, 2020), those factors support Defendants’ position. That is because: (a) the information at issue is very important to Defendants, who would be left without any Section 102/103 defenses at all as to these three patents-in-suit, were the motion not granted; (b) the total number of combinations now sought to be pressed is much less than the number of new combinations that were at issue when the Court resolved the September 11, 2024 MO; (c) the parties have already had their experts opine on these eight combinations, and Defendants’ invalidity expert has been deposed on these issues; and (d) from Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments during the hearing, it does not appear as if granting the Motion will have any impact on the pending summary judgment process. (D.I. [339] at 1, 3; D.I. [348] at 2); and (4) Therefore, Defendants’ request is granted, in that they may amend their invalidity expert reports to present the eight combinations discussed above. The parties can further meet and confer to discuss (and hopefully agree on) any further process that should occur relating to these validity issues between now and trial (including whether and when Plaintiffs should amend their responsive expert reports, and/or whether any further relief is required from the Court). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/17/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/17/2025)
01/16/25	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Videoconference hearing held on 1/16/2025 regarding Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend, (D.I. [338] ). The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding the motion. The Court took the motion under advisement. The Court also discussed Plaintiff's letter regarding Vayyar discovery, (D.I. [361] ). The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a letter regarding the Ramla Magistrate Court's request by no later than January 23, 2025. (Court reporter: Michele Rolfe; Clerk: M. Crawford) Appearances: K. Farnan, A. Alper, M. De Vries, A. Deoras, L. Schmidt and B. Verbus for Plaintiff; J. Tigan, A. Greenfield, A. Finger, J. Lam and D. Zucker for Defendants. (smg) (Entered: 01/16/2025) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Videoconference hearing held on 1/16/2025 regarding Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend, (D.I. [338] ). The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding the motion. The Court took the motion under advisement. The Court also discussed Plaintiff's letter regarding Vayyar discovery, (D.I. [361] ). The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a letter regarding the Ramla Magistrate Court's request by no later than January 23, 2025. (Court reporter: Michele Rolfe; Clerk: M. Crawford) Appearances: K. Farnan, A. Alper, M. De Vries, A. Deoras, L. Schmidt and B. Verbus for Plaintiff; J. Tigan, A. Greenfield, A. Finger, J. Lam and D. Zucker for Defendants. (smg) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
01/15/25	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's January 14, 2025 letter regarding its Unopposed Application for Issuance of a Letter of Request to Vayyar Imaging Ltd. ("Vayyar") to pursue discovery in Israel of the Accused Products, including Vayyar Care sensors used with Amazon Alexa Together, (D.I. [361] ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will discuss the issue with the parties during tomorrow's videoconference. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/15/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/15/2025) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's January 14, 2025 letter regarding its Unopposed Application for Issuance of a Letter of Request to Vayyar Imaging Ltd. ("Vayyar") to pursue discovery in Israel of the Accused Products, including Vayyar Care sensors used with Amazon Alexa Together, (D.I. [361] ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will discuss the issue with the parties during tomorrow's videoconference. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/15/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
01/14/25	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Kelly E. Farnan regarding Vayyar Discovery - re [166] Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1, # [2] Exhibit 2, # [3] Exhibit 3, # [4] Exhibit 4)(Farnan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/14/2025)
01/10/25	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Amazon Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories Regarding Counts 7-11 to Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Nos. 1-21); and (2) Amazon Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production Regarding Counts 7-11 (Nos. 1-83) filed by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC.(Tigan, Jeremy) (Entered: 01/10/2025)
12/23/24	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of [357] Letter, by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 9, # [2] Exhibit 10)(Tigan, Jeremy) (Entered: 12/23/2024)
12/18/24	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Wicker's Expert Reports on Infringement, ("Motion"), (D.I. [343] ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (1) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (2) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the Motion, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/18/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/18/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Wicker's Expert Reports on Infringement, ("Motion"), (D.I. [343] ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (1) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (2) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the Motion, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/18/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/18/2024)
12/17/24	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Jeremy A. Tigan regarding Reply in Support - re [343] MOTION to Strike Portions of Dr. Wicker's Expert Reports on Infringement. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 9, # [2] Exhibit 10)(Tigan, Jeremy) (Entered: 12/17/2024)
12/17/24	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: At counsel's request, the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference scheduled for December 23, 2024 regarding Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Expert Reports is rescheduled to January 16, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. By no later than January 6, 2025, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/17/2024) ORAL ORDER: At counsel's request, the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference scheduled for December 23, 2024 regarding Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Expert Reports is rescheduled to January 16, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. By no later than January 6, 2025, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/17/2024)
12/16/24	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:22-CV-01447 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of [345] Letter, by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A, # [2] Exhibit B, # [3] Exhibit C, # [4] Exhibit D)(Farnan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/16/2024)